Christianity & Pacifism

[Sparkey]

Along with this, and running full circle...if Jesus taught pacifism...more specifically a prohibition against military service why don't we see it clearly proclaimed in the following examples?

1. John the Baptist speaking in Luke 3: Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?” So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”

If we accept that John was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (for it is written: He [John the Baptist] will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.), why didn't he use this opportunity to clearly declare that the soldiers must leave the service?

2. When Jesus healed the Centurion's servant in Matthew 8:5-13, why didn't Jesus tell him to stop being a soldier? Instead he commended the Centurion:

When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.” And his servant was healed that same hour.

Why did Jesus tell him to "Go your way" instead of "Change your profession"?

3. Cornelius the Centurion is recorded in Acts 10:1-3 in the following wise:

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.

Acts 10:30-31
So Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God.

When he is converted at the word of Peter, there is no mention of Cornelius having to leave the Roman army...simply: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

So then the question must arise: If a Christian is to be a pacifist and eschew (as it were) military service, why is this not clearly and unambiguously proclaimed (especially in these examples) so that we, God's people would not have to guess, or wonder, or argue about it?

Let's carry this one step further...if a Christian is to be a pacifist, why don't we include those in Law Enforcement?

They use violence on a daily basis, whether wrestling a suspect to the ground or discharging a weapon.

I would entertain the argument that a Christian is to pursue the path of peace, but that there are times when one must "take up the sword"...but I just can't see from the whole counsel of the Word of God where a Christian is to completely reject the use of force in any and all circumstances.

BUMP

 

[Butch5]

Along with this, and running full circle...if Jesus taught pacifism...more specifically a prohibition against military service why don't we see it clearly proclaimed in the following examples?

1. John the Baptist speaking in Luke 3: Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?†So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.â€

If we accept that John was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (for it is written: He [John the Baptist] will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.), why didn't he use this opportunity to clearly declare that the soldiers must leave the service?

2. When Jesus healed the Centurion's servant in Matthew 8:5-13, why didn't Jesus tell him to stop being a soldier? Instead he commended the Centurion:

When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.†Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you.†And his servant was healed that same hour.

Why did Jesus tell him to "Go your way" instead of "Change your profession"?

3. Cornelius the Centurion is recorded in Acts 10:1-3 in the following wise:

There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.

Acts 10:30-31
So Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God.

When he is converted at the word of Peter, there is no mention of Cornelius having to leave the Roman army...simply: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?â€

So then the question must arise: If a Christian is to be a pacifist and eschew (as it were) military service, why is this not clearly and unambiguously proclaimed (especially in these examples) so that we, God's people would not have to guess, or wonder, or argue about it?

Let's carry this one step further...if a Christian is to be a pacifist, why don't we include those in Law Enforcement?

They use violence on a daily basis, whether wrestling a suspect to the ground or discharging a weapon.

I would entertain the argument that a Christian is to pursue the path of peace, but that there are times when one must "take up the sword"...but I just can't see from the whole counsel of the Word of God where a Christian is to completely reject the use of force in any and all circumstances.

My question would be, why do we assume nothing was said? It may not have been recorded but that doesn't mean nothing was said. We could just as easily assume that Jesus and John went on to tell them they had to leave the military.

 

[Butch5]

Thanks for the clarification, and I agree here 100%.

I just got a bit confused over your reply to Sparrowhawke.

You're welcome, it does get confusing trying to remember who believes what.

 

[mcgyver]

My question would be, why do we assume nothing was said? It may not have been recorded but that doesn't mean nothing was said. We could just as easily assume that Jesus and John went on to tell them they had to leave the military.

Two reasons come immediately to mind...

If we start to make arguments from silence, then we can justify anything that we want. We delve into pure speculation and the written word loses any credibility.

For example, we could take the story of the woman at the well in John 4 and argue that because Jesus never told the woman specifically that she sinned (5 husbands currently living with a man who is not her husband), then for the Samaritans it was OK to have 5 husbands and a lover.

An extreme example, I know...but you see the point.

The second reason is more to the heart of the matter: The scripture is given to us for our edification/knowledge of God's desire/plan for us, so that we may be "approved workmen who do not have to be ashamed".

If a question of such importance is not addressed specifically, if such a prohibition is not stated clearly, how can we be sure of any other thing?

Seems to me that if a Christian was prohibited from military service by God, then that would be made definitively clear in not only the gospels...but exception would also be found in (for example) Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17, but it's not there.

Why would God leave such ambiguity if it were prohibited? He has never been ambiguous in any of His "thou shalt nots" before...

 

[Hitch]

My question would be, why do we assume nothing was said? It may not have been recorded but that doesn't mean nothing was said. We could just as easily assume that Jesus and John went on to tell them they had to leave the military.

]My question would be, why do we assume nothing was said? It may not have been recorded but that doesn't mean nothing was said. We could just as easily assume that Jesus and John went on to tell them they had to enlarge the military

 

[Butch5]

]My question would be, why do we assume nothing was said? It may not have been recorded but that doesn't mean nothing was said. We could just as easily assume that Jesus and John went on to tell them they had to enlarge the military

I wasn't making the argument from silence. However, looking at history we can be sure they didn't do as you suggest.

 

[mcgyver]

I wasn't making the argument from silence. However, looking at history we can be sure they didn't do as you suggest.

True, and to be perfectly fair I willingly acknowledge that until 174 AD there is no record (that I've found) of Christians serving in the military or government offices (with the notable exception of "Theophilus" mentioned by Luke)...even as magistrates in the legal system (as a magistrate might be called upon to issue a death sentence). I also freely acknowledge that the Ante-Nicene writers espoused non-violence.

In fact, one of the earliest accusations against Christians (apart from cannibalism) was disloyalty...because they wouldn't defend the empire.

However, in the writings of Tertullian we see the earliest evidence of Christians serving in the military. In 174 AD a sizeable number of Christians from Melitene in the eastern region of Cappadocia joined the Roman Legio Fulmata to fight against the Quadi tribe that was invading the region.

Curiously there is no record of them being chastened by the church for their actions...indeed the incident received almost no notice outside of Melitene...but the fact remains that Christians were serving in the Roman legion at the time. ***shrug***

 

[Butch5]

True, and to be perfectly fair I willingly acknowledge that until 174 AD there is no record (that I've found) of Christians serving in the military or government offices (with the notable exception of "Theophilus" mentioned by Luke)...even as magistrates in the legal system (as a magistrate might be called upon to issue a death sentence). I also freely acknowledge that the Ante-Nicene writers espoused non-violence.

In fact, one of the earliest accusations against Christians (apart from cannibalism) was disloyalty...because they wouldn't defend the empire.

However, in the writings of Tertullian we see the earliest evidence of Christians serving in the military. In 174 AD a sizeable number of Christians from Melitene in the eastern region of Cappadocia joined the Roman Legio Fulmata to fight against the Quadi tribe that was invading the region.

Curiously there is no record of them being chastened by the church for their actions...indeed the incident received almost no notice outside of Melitene...but the fact remains that Christians were serving in the Roman legion at the time. ***shrug***

Hi mcgyver,

I think more importantly is the fact that we don't find any teaching in the early church allowing Christians to use violence. While there may have been some who did enter the military that doesn't mean the church sanctioned it. The "teaching" of the Ante-Nicene writers is non-violence. I don't see anyone teaching that violence is allowed before the time of Constantine. My question is why? It seems to me that either "all" of these Christians missed the Gospel or the Gospel taught that they could not use violence. I find it hard to believe that all of those Christians misunderstood the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. It seems much more likely to me that they did understand and were living according to the teaching they had received from Jesus and the apostles.

 

[mcgyver]

Hi mcgyver,

I think more importantly is the fact that we don't find any teaching in the early church allowing Christians to use violence. While there may have been some who did enter the military that doesn't mean the church sanctioned it. The "teaching" of the Ante-Nicene writers is non-violence. I don't see anyone teaching that violence is allowed before the time of Constantine. My question is why? It seems to me that either "all" of these Christians missed the Gospel or the Gospel taught that they could not use violence. I find it hard to believe that all of those Christians misunderstood the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. It seems much more likely to me that they did understand and were living according to the teaching they had received from Jesus and the apostles.

You bring up some good points, for sure...

But I would submit that (once again) there is a certain inherent ambiguity that, if a clear prohibition existed, would not be evident.

For example: I think that we can both agree that in Paul's time for example, that there were certain elements within the church that attempted to turn the Grace of God into licentiousness (and this from blending Greek philosophy with Christianity...a subject for another thread). Furthermore, I think that you and I can agree that we are called to live a life of Holiness.

How do we know this?

Because it is clearly stated in the bible, to wit: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:1-2 KJV

And that's not the only scripture that tells us that very thing...just the first that came to mind.

So then, it doesn't matter whether you and I lived in the 1st Century or are living in the 21st Century, we know that we are not to give ourselves over to a life of sensuality and sin. No ambiguity there...no guessing there...a clear "prohibition" exists that is transcendent. Nothing like that exists in reference to the issue of a Christian using force or serving in the military or as Law Enforcement, etc.

I'd also submit for consideration that even though the early "Church Fathers" lived closer to the time of Christ, it doesn't necessarily mean that they "got it right" all the time.

Don't get me wrong here, I have a healthy respect for these men...but Justin Martyr considered the elements of the Lord's Supper to be the actual body and blood of Christ, Origen who was one of the most influential early Christian theologians was declared a heretic a couple of hundred years later. Origen believed in Universal Reconciliation and a transmigration of souls for example, as well as holding some other views outside the pale of orthodoxy. Irenius taught that Christ ministered in His 40s instead of His 30s and that Bishops were the only safe guide to interpretation of scripture!

Closer doesn't necessarily equate with more correct...;)

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally Posted By Drew,

I assume by "opposition", you mean armed opposition? If so, and even though I say it grudgingly, I think that the citizen of Jesus' kingdom needs to follow the instructions of our King and reject the use of force. We are not called to survive, we are called to obey our King, and follow His example.

Very true.

Matthew 26:52 "But Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword in its place, for all who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.'"



This is the truth right from the mouth of The Truth Himself. There is nothing untruthful about these words. They are spoken in the context of the most worthy cause in the history of mankind, and yet they say what they say. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32) is not synonymous with long physical life. If it were, then Christ would not have died at the age of 33.

Matthew 10:39 "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."


Paul said:


2 Corinthians 10:4 "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds."


And Jesus said:

Matthew 6:24 "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other..."


Whenever the weapons of our warfare do become carnal, we have at that point "despised" the Words of our Master.


We are specifically told that as heavenly soldiers we are not to become involved in the affairs of this age:

2 Timothy 2:3 "You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 2:4 No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier."


So the minute any "Christian" takes up a weapon "for God and country" he has at that moment lost any Godly protection that comes with clinging to these words of our Lord:

Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."


It is not the call of Christ's followers to resist Rome. It is our call to die WITH Him on His Cross and to "fill up in our flesh what is lacking of His sufferings."


Colossians 1:24 "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church."


Just one more example of Christ's inspired Words which "have no place", in the orthodox Christian who is all wrapped up and involved in the affairs of this world. The command to "love your enemies" is not a desirable position from an "earthly" perspective.

"ALL who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." The only problem with these words to Peter is, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63).

The problem with 'spiritual words' is that "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). These words, spoken just when they were to 'the natural man,' Peter, were anything but 'life.'

Just as it was with the immature spirit of Peter, before Pentecost, before the Cross - it is the same immature, carnal spirit that rules the church today. Christianity has always been, like Peter before Pentecost, more than willing to fight for God. But when you count those who are willing to go to the Cross WITH (not for) Him, then you get the full meaning of our Lord's words when speaking about our day as well:

Luke 18:8 "...When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

 

[Butch5]

You bring up some good points, for sure...

But I would submit that (once again) there is a certain inherent ambiguity that, if a clear prohibition existed, would not be evident.

For example: I think that we can both agree that in Paul's time for example, that there were certain elements within the church that attempted to turn the Grace of God into licentiousness (and this from blending Greek philosophy with Christianity...a subject for another thread). Furthermore, I think that you and I can agree that we are called to live a life of Holiness.

How do we know this?

Because it is clearly stated in the bible, to wit: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:1-2 KJV

And that's not the only scripture that tells us that very thing...just the first that came to mind.

So then, it doesn't matter whether you and I lived in the 1st Century or are living in the 21st Century, we know that we are not to give ourselves over to a life of sensuality and sin. No ambiguity there...no guessing there...a clear "prohibition" exists that is transcendent. Nothing like that exists in reference to the issue of a Christian using force or serving in the military or as Law Enforcement, etc.

I'd also submit for consideration that even though the early "Church Fathers" lived closer to the time of Christ, it doesn't necessarily mean that they "got it right" all the time.

Don't get me wrong here, I have a healthy respect for these men...but Justin Martyr considered the elements of the Lord's Supper to be the actual body and blood of Christ, and Origen who was one of the most influential early Christian theologians was declared a heretic a couple of hundred years later. Origen believed in Universal Reconciliation and a transmigration of souls for example, as well as holding some other views outside the pale of orthodoxy. ;)

Hi mcgyver,

I agree with much of what you've said here, and I would submit that there is a clear prohibition in the Scriptures. You have hear it said an eye for an eye, but I tell you do not resist the evil. Resisting evil is the very purpose of the military and law enforcement.

I realize that the Ante-Nicene writers did have areas that we could question. However, I think the universality of the teaching speaks strongly to the issue.

 

[Sparkey]

...if Jesus taught pacifism...more specifically a prohibition against military service why don't we see it clearly proclaimed in the following examples?

1. John the Baptist speaking in Luke 3: Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?†So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.†...

[W]hy didn't he use this opportunity to clearly declare that the soldiers must leave the service?

2. When Jesus healed the Centurion's servant in Matthew 8:5-13, why didn't Jesus tell him to stop being a soldier? Instead he commended the Centurion:...

Why did Jesus tell him to "Go your way" instead of "Change your profession"?

3. Cornelius the Centurion is recorded in Acts 10:1-3 in the following wise: There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.
...
When he is converted at the word of Peter, there is no mention of Cornelius having to leave the Roman army...simply: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?â€

So then the question must arise: If a Christian is to be a pacifist and eschew (as it were) military service, why is this not clearly and unambiguously proclaimed (especially in these examples) so that we, God's people would not have to guess, or wonder, or argue about it?
...

I would entertain the argument that a Christian is to pursue the path of peace, but that there are times when one must "take up the sword"...but I just can't see from the whole counsel of the Word of God where a Christian is to completely reject the use of force in any and all circumstances.

(Quote truncated for brevity, emphasis changed)

These questions should not be ignored. When God admitted Cornelius into the Kingdom (Acts 10) nobody said anything about being a pacifist to him. Sure, some wondered if he should be baptized into the body of believers but it wasn't because he was a soldier. Nobody preached the hardcore pacifist line that I hear from some of this thread.

 

[Butch5]

These questions should not be ignored. When God admitted Cornelius into the Kingdom (Acts 10) nobody said anything about being a pacifist to him. Sure, some wondered if he should be baptized into the body of believers but it wasn't because he was a soldier. Nobody preached the hardcore pacifist line that I hear from some of this thread.

How do you know that? We only have what Luke chose to record. Your argument is from silence. An argument from silence by it's very nature cannot be proven. As I pointed out, it could just as easily be "assumed" that Cornelius was told to leave the military.

 

[mcgyver]

How do you know that? We only have what Luke chose to record. Your argument is from silence. An argument from silence by it's very nature cannot be proven. As I pointed out, it could just as easily be "assumed" that Cornelius was told to leave the military.

If we accept that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, literally "God-breathed"; then we must accept that the Holy Spirit has given us in the Scripture that which He wanted us to have... Does not John write: And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.? Why aren't they all recorded?

We have "snap shots" given to us...the important things that God wishes us to know.

So saying that we have only what Luke chose to record (i.e. Luke was "picking and choosing") opens up a whole new can of worms.

Yes, we could make an assumption that Cornelius was told to leave the military...but we can just as easily assume that he wasn't. Point is once again, why leave such uncertainty over something (Christian pacifism) if it is so important? Why would God leave us to try and figure it out by ourselves if it is such a major issue? Why not simply say that followers of Christ must eschew all violence in any form at all times?

That's the question...

 

[Sparkey]

How do you know that? We only have what Luke chose to record. Your argument is from silence. An argument from silence by it's very nature cannot be proven. As I pointed out, it could just as easily be "assumed" that Cornelius was told to leave the military.

I am not the one advancing the "suggestion" or "assertion" that any violence whatsoever (even a willingness to take up arms) disqualifies me as a member of the Kingdom of God. It obviously doesn't, else Cornelius would not have been admitted. What the Bible isn't silent about is the fact that he was in the military. It also states that he and his household were Gentile. The question about him being baptized was raised and resolved. No mention of his owning a sword was heard. The Holy Spirit (not Luke) chose what would be penned.

The argument from silence is being advanced by who wish to suggest a doctrine that is not found in scripture; absolute pacifism is not spoken of in the Bible.

 

[Butch5]

I am not the one advancing the "suggestion" or "assertion" that any violence whatsoever (even a willingness to take up arms) disqualifies me as a member of the Kingdom of God. It obviously doesn't, else Cornelius would not have been admitted. What the Bible isn't silent about is the fact that he was in the military. It also states that he and his household were Gentile. The question about him being baptized was raised and resolved. No mention of his owning a sword was heard. The Holy Spirit (not Luke) chose what would be penned.

The argument from silence is being advanced by who wish to suggest a doctrine that is not found in scripture; absolute pacifism is not spoken of in the Bible.

On the contrary, if you say the use of violence is allowed to Christians then you are using an argument from silence. Nowhere did Jesus or the apostles give permission for Christians to use violence. You keep going to Cornelius, yet you cannot say that he was allowed to continue in the military after his conversion. We know from the historical records that a Christian who joined the military was excommunicated. Jesus give a clear command to His followers, do not resist the evil.

 

[Butch5]

If we accept that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, literally "God-breathed"; then we must accept that the Holy Spirit has given us in the Scripture that which He wanted us to have... Does not John write: And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.? Why aren't they all recorded?

We have "snap shots" given to us...the important things that God wishes us to know.

So saying that we have only what Luke chose to record (i.e. Luke was "picking and choosing") opens up a whole new can of worms.

Yes, we could make an assumption that Cornelius was told to leave the military...but we can just as easily assume that he wasn't. Point is once again, why leave such uncertainty over something (Christian pacifism) if it is so important? Why would God leave us to try and figure it out by ourselves if it is such a major issue? Why not simply say that followers of Christ must eschew all violence in any form at all times?

That's the question...

Hi mcgyver,

He did say it, resist not the evil. Speaking about God giving us His word, he gave it to the Jews also, yet they missed it, why? I believe for the same reason many Christians today miss it. They don't want to hear what it says. Look at the passage I've been quoting about resisting evil. On other boards I've seen such twisted interpretations put on this passage it was amazing. The love your enemies passage, I've seen Christians try to say it is a loving act to shoot someone who is trying to hurt them, that somehow they are showing them love. We have the Scriptures and we have the historical evidence, it seems pretty clear to me.

Regarding God's word, Paul told his readers to hold that which he has taught them whether by word or epistle.

KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2Th 2:15 KJV)

Given that we find the church teaching non violence for the first 300 years it would seem that that was one of the traditions that they were taught.

 

[Sparkey]

...yet you cannot say that he was allowed to continue in the military after his conversion.

Right, because the Bible is silent about that. The doctrine of absolute pacifism depends on the assumption that Cornelius was told that he had to quit the Roman Army. Show me the Scripture that even remotely suggests such a thing. It is because you can't that the argument is "made from silence," that is, from something the Bible says nothing about.

What we do know is that God found him acceptable while he was in the military, baptized him in the Holy Spirit and and there was no mention of him being told to repent of the "sin" of not being a pacifist before being baptized in water. It was a non-issue. There is no such thing as a "sin of not being a pacifist." That's what the bible is silent about.

 

[mcgyver]

Here's a thought that occurred to me:

An army...any army...exists for one purpose only. After all the layers of the onion are peeled away, after everything is said and done, an army exists to go and kill who ever they are told to kill; until they are told to stop. That's what an army does...

Now within the US Army, we have 3 basic elements: Combat Arms (the shooters), Combat Support (Military Police et.al.) and Combat Service Support (the ones who keep the whole thing running: Finance specialists, records keepers, Cooks, Quartermasters, and the like.). At least that was the organization when I was Active Duty so many years ago.

No matter what one's job within the Army, everyone is a "cog in the machine" that allows the Army to fulfill the above stated mission.

Let's look at a Chaplain...he is unarmed and considered a non-combatant. Yet in wearing the uniform he is also part of that machine, even as he ministers to the needs of soldiers in his charge.

So then, is this Chaplain (in obeying Christ's command to be salt and light) sinning against God in that he is in the military? Even though he is unarmed and a non-combatant?

If so (and this is an additional question); are we stating that there is one place (the military) that is off-limits to the sharing of the light of Christ? One place that no Christian may be a missionary to the unsaved?

Curious....

 

[mcgyver]

There's one thing else that I'd like to share, and is the reason for the post above...a personal testimony...

I came to know Christ as my Lord and Savior in my 30's as a Senior NCO in the US Army. I spent my entire career with some of the most "elite" units the Army had to offer...if one had opened the dictionary to the word: "Warrior"...they'd have seen my picture...I was at the very "point of the spear" and I loved doing what I was doing.

I will be eternally grateful that Jesus took a stone cold heart and made me a new creature.

With less than 90 days in the faith, we were deployed with the DRF 1 to the First Gulf War with the 82nd Airborne Division.

While there, and during the subsequent build up our Chaplain held bible studies, Sunday services...he visited us when we were forward deployed, and he placed within me a burning desire to delve into the Bible...and really served to get my feet grounded during a time I could have easily gone "sideways".

In turn, I had the profound privilege as a brand-new Christian of leading 6 young hard-charging paratroopers to faith in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind as I look back that God's hand was in all of it. His hand was in my salvation, by His hand that Chaplain built up my faith, by His hand He gave me grace to lead others to faith.

I wonder what would have happened if there had not been any Christians in the service at that time...

In my current role as a pastor, my combat experience allows me to minister to our young men coming back from the current war. They will open up to me because I've been there (the 1st Gulf War was my 3d time getting shot at and shooting back). They'll tell me things that they would never tell a civilian, because one who has never experienced the horror of war can never understand what a soldier goes through.

Once again, God's hand in every turn of my life...to include jumping out of airplanes carrying a rifle for a living.